Back here, in our animated discussion on SSM and religious bigots, Blogging Tory Jordan Alcock seems to be patting himself on the back for being on the side of the angels:
... I must say that I agree that a civil marriage commissioner has two options: perform the ceremony against his religious values, or quit and get a new job.
Religious disagreement is reserved for church ceremonies - churches have, and should have every right to deny any person marriage sanctioned by the church.
But when we're talking about state-run marriage, they are obliged to keep religion out of it.
Well, bully for you, Jordan. It's nice of you to see things that way. One only wonders where the fuck you were when this controversy was actually in full scream some time back.
It's seriously annoying to notice how some of Canada's moderate conservatives are only too happy to now publicly support SSM, and even admit that marriage commissioners should do their job or get the hell out, when those same folks were curiously quiet until it finally became clear who the winning side was.
For someone who is now taking this position, one Googles in vain for Mr. Alcock taking a stand when it would have meant something. No fear, though -- once the battle is over, and the dust has settled, one can count on Jordan -- like so many of his principled Blogging Tory colleagues -- emerging from his foxhole, quickly checking the wind, and shuffling over to stand with the winners. Yes, profiles in convenience, the lot of them.
Sorry, Jordan, but if you want the credit, you might want to take that principled stand and report for duty when it counts for something.
11 comments:
It's about time you paid homage to that smug, obnoxious little prick's unique take on issues by featuring him in a post all to himself.
I still don't know whether the incoherence and inconsistencies in Conservative principles and actions result from them being profoundly dishonest, or from simply not being able to remember anything that happened more than six months ago, at the very most. I suspect for little conservalings like All Cock, the start of the SSM debate in 2003 must seem like it happened ages ago. I mean, he's only 12, after all.
hahaha thanks for the post... I'm honoured. And the congratulations have been flowing in.
Unfortunately you misunderstood - I was always a Civil Union supporter, not an SSM supporter. I disagree with gay marriage, but I also understand the importance of seperation of state and religion. It's too late to go back and do it properly now though - the floodgates have opened.
But I must say - when I grow up... I want to be smrat like ti-guy.
You will be, and you'll learn how to spell separation as well. Unless you let yourself go. From your photo, you look like you'll "tend to fat." And I'd be concerned about that hairline, if I were you...
judging from the wedding photos i've seen - he'd still be a catch at a same sexer.
but it's not up to citizens to deny other citizens their legal rights. yet. that's why harper's stacking the legal deck with social conservatives while he's prime minister.
hidden agenda? nope. i knew he was gonna do it.
good job ti-guy...
I'll go off myself now. I've failed to live up to your standards. One wonders what your strange obsession with my physical appearance is though...
It's alright, when you're this good looking - you get used to it.
...and the troublesome T-Zone, don't forget that, Jordan. People with big pores have to be extra vigilant in that respect. I'd send you some Clinique for Men brochures, but I'm sure you have them already.
What do you think, sooey? Is Jordan and Axe man?
Perhaps ti-guy will learn to spell difficult words like "an".
as a beautiful person, myself - i don't really have the time to spare away from the mirror to comment. and i don't bother with rightwing blogs. they're just establishment cheerleaders. and we've got the mainstream media for that already.
Unfortunately you misunderstood - I was always a Civil Union supporter, not an SSM supporter.
How wonderful that Mr. Alcock supports the logic of "seperate but equal". Tell me, are you a fan of segregation too?
Perhaps ti-guy will learn to spell difficult words like "an".
Touché, Frizell. Touch-frikkin'-ché.
Jose, you're thinking about the types of people (honest ones) who will not rush to judgment or decide too quickly before hearing all the arguments and seeing all the evidence. That has nothing to do with conservatism or progressivism. That's just being smart and prudent.
The conservatives we're talking about heard all the legal and moral arguments over and over and over again and still engaged in pointless obstructionism right up to the point where they could no longer (and even then, a year later, they gave it one last shot). I wouldn't be surprised if, on the issue of SSM, they still keep trying, for the forseeable future. You see, fundamentally, these types of people view morality as a function of how loud they proclaim their outrage about what other people are doing, because that's far easier than focussing on their own personal moral behaviour, which, when the truth comes out, is usually revealed to be appallingly immoral.
Post a Comment